Delhi High Court
Natioinal Insurance Company Ltd. vs Shri Nand Lal & Ors on 3 April, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 3rd April, 2014
+ MAC.APP.565/2011
NATIOINAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha,
Advocate.
Versus
SHRI NAND LAL & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.Manish Maini, Advocate
for Respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned award dated
19.02.2011, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for an
amount of Rs.75,900/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of claim petition till realization of the amount.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance
Company submits that the driving licence of the driver of the offending
vehicle was fake, which has been proved by RW2 and R3W1, despite, the
learned Tribunal has not granted recovery rights in favour of the
appellant/Insurance Company and against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, i.e.,
owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively.
3. I note, in para 12, captioned as 'liability' of the impugned award, the
learned Tribunal has recorded that report of the Investigator of Insurance
Company in regard to driving licence of respondent No.2 being not entered
in the record alongwith report filed by the Licensing Authority, Matura,
wherein it is stated that details of fee in records for issuance of licence to
respondent No.2 (before the Tribunal) had not been found, therefore, his
licence was stated to have not been issued from their department.
4. In view of the above facts, the learned Tribunal observed that the
report was vague and did not disclose whether details of licence of
respondent No.2 (before the Tribunal) were available or not in their record.
Mere reporting that fee was not traceable, therefore, the licence was not
issued, could not substantiate the proof of fake licence. It is further recorded
that the appellant/Insurance Company did not examine any witness from the
concerned Licensing Authority in this regard.
5. As stated by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant/Insurance Company that the appellant company had filed the
application before the learned Tribunal to examine the official from the RTO
concerned and pursuant thereto the learned Tribunal issued the summons
against the said witness, however, he did not appear.
6. If this assertion of the appellant/Insurance Company is believed, then
why no steps have been taken further by the appellant company to get the
Non-Bailable Warrants issued against the official of the concerned RTO.
Moreover, during the pendency of the appeal, no efforts have been made by
the appellant/Insurance Company to examine any witness from the
concerned Licensing Authority to prove that the driving licence on record
was fake.
7. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the instant
appeal. The same is dismissed accordingly.
8. Consequently, the Registry of this Court is directed to release the
statutory amount in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company.
SURESH KAIT, J.
APRIL 03, 2014
sb
